Templeton's got a pretty good strip at the above link about what Batman would have looked like without Finger.

Anyhow, I'm not one to advocate for Internet petitions -- hell, I haven't gotten around to sending in anything myself -- but if anyone wants to drop a line to proposals@google.com , that's the address. It'd be a nice thing to see, and likely the greatest exposure Bill's ever gotten.

There's an interview with the showrunner of Gotham. It's enlightening, sometimes exciting, frequently irritating (every time he says "of course" it's for something I don't think should be an "of course" at all).

I suspect part of the problem is the interviewer, who manages to misspell BOTH of Mark Antony's names, and thinks the problem with SHIELD was the lack of superheroes instead of the first 15 episodes being terrible.

So the 1989 movie turned 25 yesterday. I haven't seen it in a long time, but what I remember about it was a greater focus on the Joker than there was on Batman, which I suppose made sense for two reasons: Batman's rogues gallery typically had a lot more character than he did, and Jack Nicholson was a bigger box office draw than Michael Keaton. As a movie, it's not anything great, despite all the gushing that some websites have gone on about yesterday, but it was the most groundbreaking movie in terms of adapting comics.

There's a lot to like about it. It has the good sense to start in media res instead of doing a damn origin story (yeah, we get to Bruce's parents' deaths later, and the Joker gets an origin story and rather more than he needs of one), the production design is pretty damn neat and Jack Nicholson is the best damn Jack Nicholson there is. And that's without getting into the marketing, which was era-defining too.

It's not perfect but you're right about how it reinvigorated the superhero genre. It showed people Batman could be more than one thing. (And then, unfortunately, Batman and Robin made people decide that no, Batman should only be one thing, and it's not Batman and Robin.)

There's probably more to be said about the movie's legacy than the movie itself. It's had an impact on every superhero adaptation since, for good or bad. And, most importantly to my mind, it paved the way for Batman: The Animated Series.

EDIT: Sims has a good piece on Burton and Furst's Gotham City design and how it's influenced the subsequent incarnations. He also draws the connection to TAS's aesthetics -- I know I've said it before, but I LOVE the "it's 1992 but it's also 1939" anachronisms like big-screen black-and-white TV's.

(Which is also what sold me on Spectacular Spider-Man, sight unseen: I read an interview where Weisman said "It's 2008 but it's also 1963" and that was all I needed; clearly he Got It.)

I may be dead wrong about this but my sense is that he was troubled by Finger's lack of recognition and financial benefit but at the same time, terrified that even the slightest thing he did to rectify matters might slightly diminish his own income and celebrity. He is not the only person in comic book history credited with creating lasting, valuable properties who feels that way about past collaborators. One in particular has really disappointed me over the years.

Ooh! Ooh! I bet I can figure out who he's talking about!

Evanier also makes the observation that, increasingly, that "Batman created by Bob Kane" credit is something that's NEGATIVELY associated with Kane instead of positively. He's right as far as that goes -- among comics fans, pros, and press, I'd say there's a MASSIVE backlash against Kane at this point. But people going to see The Dark Knight don't know any of that shit. Does the Kane Estate care that that sole credit has made Bob's name toxic among comics fans? Sure doesn't appear that way.

But if, say, people show up waving protest signs when they put his star on the Walk of Fame, that's the kind of negative publicity that can start to spill over into the mainstream.

Marc Tyler Nobleman has proven pretty good at picking opportunities to publicly criticize the Kane credit. Athena Finger has started to speak up too. Could be they eventually hit a tipping point where the Kane Estate decides it's better business to allow the credit change.

It IS only credit, and credit doesn't cost anything.

On the other hand, I suspect the Kane Estate is thinking Athena Finger won't stop at credit and, if they give Bill that, she won't stop there and will start pursuing a financial stake too. (All eyes are on Kirby v Marvel -- which the Supreme Court hasn't even agreed to take yet but which could have a huge impact on pre-1978 work-for-hire law. Could, but probably won't.)